Why voters should back AAP now, if only to fight it later

Hate him, love him, but give it to him. Martyrdom was his since the day he decided to form the minority government in Delhi. But when the hour came, he succeeded in playing victim of not merely one political party or the other but the entire establishment of the power elite.

Arvind Kejriwal can now tell voters how the Congress and the BJP came together to stall his noble bill. He can tell them how his government was forced off the cliff just two days after it ordered an FIR against Mukesh Ambani. The AAP could not have dreamed of pressing the eject button from a more righteous high.

AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal. Reuters

Nobody can tell how well that campaign will resonate with the masses but, in a series of political masterstrokes, Kejriwal can now claim to have exposed how little there is to differentiate between the country's two principal political alternatives and how blatantly both protect corporate interests.

This tells us at least two things about Arvind Kejriwal. Whatever is the contour of the new order he envisions, he is in a hurry to change the system. His ultimate goals may be uncertain but there is no ambiguity about his means. A shrewd new entrant, he has no qualms about playing the old political game by its populist rules and playing it, spectacularly, to the gallery.

Yet, Arvind Kejriwal's ideologically uncertain and methodically opportunistic politics has raised hope. Classical exponents of social (or political) reforms and those dirty revolutionaries have always claimed that true change is not easy, true change takes time. Because they are not wrong, the vast majority of non-reformers and non-revolutionaries rarely fancies such an arduous task possible.

For all the criticism it attracts, the AAP has shown that it is possible to make a dent in the power monolith in what must be a blink in the political timeframe. Till now, most disenchanted voters thought the power politics sponsored by deep pockets was unshakable. With every viable political option conforming to the system, there was simply no room for a political alternative.

Arvind Kejriwal has proved otherwise. To break the monolith, he resorted to unconventional moves—call it chaos and anarchy—often to peddle gimmicks, a la old politics, to voters. The more they buy into his histrionics and dreams, the more the salesmen of the older business-as-usual politics (including a section of the media and civic societies) feel threatened. And, in all of this unsettling nautanki, he is providing the energy needed to break the great inertia so that the process of change can roll.

Thankfully, there is more to the AAP brand of politics that is not so much about the AAP itself. All new politics flourishes (or perishes) around a single grand idea. For the BSP, it has been Dalit pride. For the Shiv Sena, it has been Marathi pride. For the RJD, it was the Muslim-Yadav revival. The AAP played the anti-corruption card, and proved that people are willing to be mobilised beyond caste or religious stereotypes.

But then, Delhi was easy. Identity politics has never worked in the only truly cosmopolitan city of India where no single community has the numbers to decisively swing the polls. But other metros, with significant numbers of those we call sons-of-the-soil, may make it difficult for the AAP. The challenge will get still tougher in the hinterland where caste-religion divides are much more entrenched and more often than not decisive.

Nevertheless, the next elections are open to an unprecedented possibility. With more than 30 seats, a less-than-two-year-old outfit may well emerge as the third largest party in the next Lok Sabha ahead of Mamata, Mayawati and Jayalalithaa. That in itself may not decide how India will be ruled in the next five years. But that will certainly push the limits of possibilities further.

Granted, there is no shortcut to true change. Granted, Kejriwal's dramatic methods, irrespective of his ulterior motives, may not achieve any change at all. But politics and democracies must continuously evolve. Complacency and sheer inertia had been standing for too long before Kejriwal attempted to stir the pot.

If Arvind Kejriwal turns out to be sincere in his pursuit, he will deserve all help from civil society. If he turns out to be autocratic, he will have to be replaced by other forces to complete the process of change. Hopefully, we will see fresh political participation even as the old outfits reinvent themselves.

In this context, it is important to weigh the two biggest promises of change, however unevenly matched, in the coming elections. Compared to Arvind Kejriwal, Narendra Modi has exhibited more pronounced streaks of authoritarianism in the past. And there is no real bargain with Modi because he represents the same political monolith. With Kejriwal, it's perhaps worth the risk because he is making room for (if not offering) an alternative.

Therefore, it makes sense to back the AAP now, if only to fight it later. If Delhi was Kejriwal's stepping stone to national politics, Kejriwal can well be India's stepping stone to real change.